Talk:James Komack
Namesake What's the source for this character being named after James Komack? Komack did direct an episode of Trek, but that wasn't until a season later. --From Andoria with Love 22:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC) :Here, probably from text commentary from : "According to Denise and Michael Okuda, the character was named for James Komack, director of "A Piece of the Action"." --Alan 22:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Hmm, i see. Well that's rather odd, considering the character was created before he directed his episode. Thanks for clarifying. --From Andoria with Love 06:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Unsupported coment -- strike, unless there's a source. As with Westervliet, there's this paragraph in the background section: :"Byron Morrow, none-the-less, portrayed Admiral Westervliet in . Although Westervliet's name was not spoken on screen it appeared in the end credits; additionally, a noticeable change was made in Morrow's appearance to differentiate between the two characters." I don't see how it can be said that there was an obvious attempt to change the actor's appearance. It was a year later, he may simply have had a different hairstyle, and the more subdued lighting was most likely just the preference of a different director, not an intentional choice to obscure his features. The admiral character is so minor, would they have really gone to the trouble to change his appearance to differentiate from an admiral he played the year before, when there would be no reason to? If DC Fontana was still script edtior in season two, she probably would've caught the Westervliet/Komack mixup, and made sure to change the name in the script, but her replacement wasn't as attentive or well versed in what had come before. Whatever the reason, unless there's a source where somebody says they intentionally changed the actor's appearance, this comment is just an unsupported assumption and, IMO, should be stricken from the articles -- TimPendragon (talk) 16:10, February 5, 2020 (UTC) : I'm not sure how an almost obvious full head of hair and a complete 'Picard' are a director's choice... or not noticeable? --Alan (talk) 16:15, February 5, 2020 (UTC) They may just not have decided to put the actor in a toupee the second time around, for whatever reason. To assume that it's to intentionally make this minor character look different from another minor character played by the same actor a year before is ludicrous to me. Unless there's documentation that they wanted the character to look different specifically, instead of just not bothering with a hairpiece the second time around, I don't think the statement should be presented as fact. It's an assumption that is clearly open to debate. We do not know their intent. Period. It's the difference between, "the actor's appearance was different in the later episode" and "the actor's appearance was changed to to differentiate the characters." One is a simple statement of fact, the other implies intent which cannot be confirmed. --TimPendragon (talk) 17:28, February 5, 2020 (UTC) It's interesting to note that in the Kelvin timeline version of this same character, James Komack (alternate reality), we note that the same actor played another admiral in a later film who may or may not be the same character, despite looking different. Yes, I know it's an unnamed character vs. one named in the credits, but that suggestion of "we don't know, but it might be" applies for TOS' actor's situation, if not the character's. I don't object to noting that he looks different -- of course not! -- I object to noting that he looks different "intentionally to differentiate characters," when we cannot draw that conclusion without support. The comment needs to at least be reworded so as not to "assume facts not in evidence." --TimPendragon (talk) 20:24, February 5, 2020 (UTC)